More Good News! We're Actually in Debt To The Tune of $211 Trillion

[GuitarDaddy]

And the OP repeatedly claims the Dems are fear mongering

Two hundred Trieeeelieooon dollars! :awe:

 

[sarsipias1234]

You have now resorted to calling me names.

Name calling is the last resort of the desperate.

I am now convinced you are purposely harassing me.

 

[sarsipias1234]

Delete

 

[sarsipias1234]

Delete

 

[woolfe9999]

There's a reason the CBO doesn't try to project anything beyond 10 years. It's because when projecting beyond 10 years, any resemblence between the projection and the reality tends to be coincidental, and the CBO doesn't want to be made to look foolish. Perhaps this economist should have heeded that wisdom.

 

[Double Trouble]

I have no doubt as a collective we are screwed for the next 30 years or so. That's how long it's going to take for the bottom to fall out, for the country to get forced into some semblance of fiscal reality, and then for the country to pull itself out of the muck the way it became a great country to begin with -- hard individual work rather than entitlement.

 

[sarsipias1234]

Delete

 

[sarsipias1234]

Delete

 

[sarsipias1234]

Delete

 

[IronWing]

I'm not sure we could legally do that, might be seen as unconstitutional confiscation of private property. I am sure we couldn't politically.
Fern

Just a side note to the conversation: The Supremes have already found that no private property interests exist in the Social Security system. I guess those crafty bastards back in the thirties had considered that angle and so set SS up as an insurance scheme as opposed to a savings scheme.

But I agree with your point, SS ain't going anywhere. The benefits may be inflated away but the geezers will get their checks even if the mail carriers have to crawl through a post nuclear wasteland to deliver them.

 

[LegendKiller]

I said that if you take into account the hidden debt the dollar is worthless.

The dollar only has value right now because the debt is not being fully disclosed.

Yeah, nobody knows about it.

Please dude, get an education.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I love it when a poster complains of insult then redoubles his efforts to prove the validity of the offending comments.

 

[LegendKiller]

You have now resorted to calling me names.

Name calling is the last resort of the desperate.

I am now convinced you are purposely harassing me.

Dude, you're the fucking troll. You run around here posting insane shit and don't provide any backup, then you play this pussy victim complex. Get real.

 

[sarsipias1234]

The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

 

[IronWing]

Congress has run out of people the can exploit for money.

Not true at all. Right now the richest people in this country have the lowest tax rate.

 

[sarsipias1234]

Delete

 

[StrangerGuy]

Not true at all. Right now the richest people in this country have the lowest tax rate.

How funny this the people of this country can be so oblivious to the actual megarich crooks blatantly driving it to the ground while directing their anger to things comparatively trivia or useless.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Not true at all. Right now the richest people in this country have the lowest tax rate.

They're not rich, they're Job Creators. Just ask Speaker Boehner.

 

[cubby1223]

You left out the part where 82% of that was created by Republican presidents.

Is your response a solution to the problem?

 

[Genx87]

There's a reason the CBO doesn't try to project anything beyond 10 years. It's because when projecting beyond 10 years, any resemblence between the projection and the reality tends to be coincidental, and the CBO doesn't want to be made to look foolish. Perhaps this economist should have heeded that wisdom.

I'd prefer if the CBO didnt project beyond 2 years. They are terrible at predicting anything further out. Too much happens over a decade to make any predictions reliable.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm not sure we could legally do that, might be seen as unconstitutional confiscation of private property. I am sure we couldn't politically.

Then there's the whole matter of outstanding pension and HC obligations for fed govt workers. Don't see how we could eliminate that.

Fern

As a CPA I'm familiar with pensions, both Defined Benefit Plans and Defined Contribution Plans.

Now, you can freeze them. But to take money out of either is federal prison time.

I've had to assist the PB&G corp doing just that.

Fern

The federal government already spent a lot of the SS money, and the only reason they avoided a shutdown in April was by spending federal pension money. The pension money will dry up on Tuesday, hence the debt ceiling deadline. I'm not sure that SS money could be construed as private property anyway, since it is simply set aside in a federal account. If it were a private account, then it should be protected private property, but I think it would be easy to argue that it's simply government money the way things are set up now.

 

[IronWing]

The federal government already spent a lot of the SS money, and the only reason they avoided a shutdown in April was by spending federal pension money. The pension money will dry up on Tuesday, hence the debt ceiling deadline. I'm not sure that SS money could be construed as private property anyway, since it is simply set aside in a federal account. If it were a private account, then it should be protected private property, but I think it would be easy to argue that it's simply government money the way things are set up now.

What they started in April wasn't spending federal pension money, the pension money is still on account. What they did was to stop buying bonds with it, creating head space in the debt limit for other types of borrowing. They are more or less doing the equivalent of sitting on a stack of checks they know they have to mail but are waiting for a debt limit increase before mailing them. This is one reason the debt limit increase has to be big, to account for this backlog in bond buying plus the regular borrowing.

 

[Wreckem]

I'm not sure we could legally do that, might be seen as unconstitutional confiscation of private property. I am sure we couldn't politically.

Then there's the whole matter of outstanding pension and HC obligations for fed govt workers. Don't see how we could eliminate that.

Fern

Its not private property or a contractual obligation per SCotUS. They have to give you a hearing before they deny you coverage but they could do away with the program and it would be 100% legal.

SS doesn't really matter though. Its chump change in the grand scheme of things. Medicare is the noose tightening around Uncle Sams throat.

 

[nobodyknows]

Future obligations does not equal debt.

We could pass a bill tomorrow eliminating Social Security and wipe all that debt away.

LOL, no you couoldn't.

 

[Jaskalas]

More Good News! We're Actually in Debt To The Tune of $211 Trillion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43929476/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

Fern

And the OP repeatedly claims the Dems are fear mongering

MSNBC... and Dems..... yeah, that about sums it up.

As for the figure. The current path is unsustainable, that number is simply taking our current path and drawing a straight line with it. It won't happen that way, but hopefully it illustrates the absurdity of keeping the programs we already have - let alone expanding them.